FOOD FOR THOUGHT AND DUMB GUN LAWS

[dainerra]

it may also be that the "modest" background check was simply a NAME check. Personally, those (which some employers do) are pretty worthless. I mean, a simple typo and something won't be added to your record. A thorough background check is going to be over more accurate identifying information such as DL, social security, number, etc

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Requiring a SSN for a NCIC check is illegal.

 

[PaulScott]

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens " Adolf Hitler )
Here is the common sense in it all and some facts to boot .

Criminals , Drug dealers/cartel , gang members , Robbers ,rapist in general bad people will never give up there Guns , Law enforcement cant get there guns as it is and even though they try cant protect the people from them now as it stands . I for one don't want Timmy pervert the serial rapist down the road or G Dog the Violent Felon thinking they can walk armed into my home and Do or take anything they want because I I have no Real way to defend myself from his illegal firearm.

Russia has some of the Strictest Gun laws in the world and yet they have a Crime rate that almost triples the crime rate of the USA

More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters , drownings ,drunk drivers , illegal alien drivers, then by guns The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

"States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns".

The Smartest military minds in the World have said that if a foreign group or country invaded the USA that there is not way the country's military and law enforcement could defend against it without the help from its already well armed citizens , other countries know this and is one of the many factors that deter them for attacking the USA ( one of the most hated countries in the world )


OK now that being Said , here is another FACT ( IMO) , Morons should not have Guns or any sort , there should be a some sort of Common sense test kinda like a IQ test , to gauge if a person has common sense . but not just to own a gun , there should be a common sense test for a LOT of things , Driving , Having kids /pets , to post on a web site , and last but not least to be president of the US , sadly none of these are the case and morons get to run rampant driving ,having kids , posting on line and being presidents with no repercussions.

So what do ya say lets ban it all ? Cars space heaters ? alcohol ? < ( did we not already try that ) swimming pools , hey lets ban air planes too a lot of kids died from them< (9/11 may god rest your souls) fertilizer ((Timothy McVeigh) Dose anyone with any common sense really think that if that psycho punk kid that killed all those people had not had a gun that those kids would still be alive ? or would even more been dead from the bomb he made with simple instructions posted on like by some MORON ?
in Short .. gun , cars , space heaters, kiddy pools , dont kill people MORONS kill people .

your Friend
SSgt Paul S Williamson

 

[dainerra]

Requiring a SSN for a NCIC check is illegal.

I just meant a thorough background check in general. Most employers now require a credit check as well as a criminal background check.

 

[mom'sfolly]

People keep saying here that Great Britain has the highest violent crime rate in Europe, and in much higher than in the US. Most of that is recording differences in what is considered violent crime...

Murder rates in the UK are about a quarter what they are in the US, and rape rates are about the same. The difference is mainly in what is considered assault. In the UK assault is often recorded whether there is injury or not; the US doesn't work that way.

One might also argue that the issue isn't guns in peoples homes that keep the rate of violence down in the US (if it is truly lower); but the willingness of the US court system to throw people in jail. The US has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world.

As for gun control, no one is talking about taking guns away. People are looking for solutions that include who can sell weapons, what kind of weapons can be sold, who can buy weapons and under what conditions.

So far here, the only argument I've seen for high ammunition round is because we want them. Someone argued that they might be needed for someone with a disability. I would say that someone who is so disabled that they cannot load a gun, is also likely to be so disabled that they cannot safely fire a gun.

 

[waterdog]

Only one problem with gun laws and a famous comedian states it bluntly but true

 

[PaulScott]

So far here, the only argument I've seen for high ammunition round is because we want them. Someone argued that they might be needed for someone with a disability. I would say that someone who is so disabled that they cannot load a gun, is also likely to be so disabled that they cannot safely fire a gun.

I'm Disabled Lost my leg to a IED on my 4th tour in Iraq , you think I'm not capable to Safely fire a Firearm ?
Strange way of thinking

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Someone argued that they might be needed for someone with a disability. I would say that someone who is so disabled that they cannot load a gun, is also likely to be so disabled that they cannot safely fire a gun.

That has to the the most insulting comment I have ever heard on this site.....

 

[duckinnut]

I'm Disabled Lost my leg to a IED on my 4th tour in Iraq , you think I'm not capable to Safely fire a Firearm ?
Strange way of thinking

First of all Thank You for your service to this great country and defending my rights and freedoms that I enjoy. I am sorry to hear that your have lost your leg in defense of these freedoms but glad your common sense thinking wasn't. People often forget these rights and freedoms are constantly defended by courageous people such as yourself for hundreds of years. But sadly to say I fear the biggest threat to these liberties are not outside our borders but within them. Once again thank you and Merry Christmas.

 

[Manic J]

Hi mom'sfolly,
I cannot contest your info on the comparison of crimes between the UK and the USA without some more time researching the subject.

But, I can speak on the definition of assault. There needs to be no injury in the USA, just a perception, or a fear of such. A charge of assault can even be brought from unwanted or offensive contact. Example; spitting ... gross and disgusting, yes, injurious, no. Here is an excerpt from .. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault it is easy to confuse assault with battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.
Elements:
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.
Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension. In addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result. A defendant who holds a gun to a victim's head possesses the requisite intent, since it is substantially certain that this act will produce an apprehension in the victim. In all cases, intent to kill or harm is irrelevant.
In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery. An intent to frighten will not suffice for this form of assault.
There can be no assault if the act does not produce a true apprehension of harm in the victim. There must be a reasonable fear of injury. The usual test applied is whether the act would induce such apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person. The status of the victim is taken into account. A threat made to a child might be sufficient to constitute an assault, while an identical threat made to an adult might not.
Virtually all jurisdictions agree that the victim must be aware of the danger. This element is not required, however, for the attempted battery type of assault. A defendant who throws a rock at a sleeping victim can only be guilty of the attempted battery assault, since the victim would not be aware of the possible harm.

Ok, so if were are talking about the forms of gun control that you mentioned, what restrictions do you have in mind that would not threaten the constitution? I would consider reasonable and constitutional solutions, and am interested.

The ammunition ...... or 30 round clips that hold the ammunition more to your point........ The 30 round clip is what is reasonable for infantry to have. You see it all goes back to the Constitution and the Second Amendment. The citizens must be allowed to have arms that an oppressing force (foreign or domestic) would have. That is it in a nutshell .... People (myself included) are protecting the Constitution of the United States Of America. If there is a solution that does not threaten that then you've got a winner. But that's the whole problem. There doesn't seem to be one.